You are president and the CIA hands you a PDB entitled: Awlaki Determined To Strike in US

[NNN0LHI]

And inside that President's Daily Brief it lays out the threat and some possible options.

First option is sending in some helicopters full of soldiers with all the possible things that could go wrong with an operation like that and try to "arrest", him and bring him back for trial in the US.

Second option is that we already have a drone following his every move at all times and can kill this guy soon as the order is given.

Third option is we could threaten Yemen with being invaded if they don't arrest and turn Awlaki over to us. Knowing full well if it appears the leaders in Yemen either won't or can't comply with our demand we would have to invade and occupy the country to look for him ourselves.

Fourth option is we could do nothing and hope no attacks ever materialize.

Which option would you choose if you were the president in that situation?

Don

[treestar]

1. Illustrates why it is not so easy as people are making it out to be

Just arrest him and try him! Not so simple as it sounds.

[flamingdem]

10. Obama didn't have to get involved

but because he has done so, and is effective, we are truly safer in the USA ...as opposed to manipulated into fear with little done for our safety as with Bush.

[treestar]

22. Imagine if Awlaki managed an attack

Too and then everybody saying "Obama should have gotten him first."

Heck that was said about Clinton, who'd had a chance to get OBL but didn't take it because there were women and children around in the compound. Then we had the right and pundits saying Clinton was responsible for 911!

[ellisonz]

36. +2001

[ellisonz]

35. We lost a helicopter going after Bin Laden. We were fortunate there were no casualties.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. What about this option?

The US Justice Department presents evidence in a US court in front of a judge and grand jury and obtains an indictment against al-Alawki prior to killing him. the fact is that al-Alawki has been on the President's hit list for over a year and obtaiining even a shred of judicial review would have taken a few minutes if the evidence is as rock solid as many of you offer.

[MineralMan]

5. Actually, I believe there has been some court review.

Relatives of al-Alawki took his presence on that list to court to try to get him off it. They failed. At least that's what I understand. So, there is at least a "shred" of judicial review. The court, as I recall, ruled that it was not an issue within its purview.

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Which means the court did not look at any evidince at all.

This ruling was to determine whether the court would even consider the motion by the petitioner. As I understand it, the Obama Justice Dept. offered a counter-motion to dismiss solely based on the state secrets privledge. This is exactly what the GW Bush Admin did on many occasions. The judge never looked at any evidence after ruling the plaintiffs had no standing.

[theaocp]

19. +1

Can't be defended. Just like warrantless wiretaps. Could do it the right way, but that takes fucking effort. Just cut corners and tell people ya got a terrorist.

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, I believe that's the case.

Thanks for verifying it.

[treestar]

38. If they had no standing, Awaki could have done it himself

If he was the wrong person and had nothing to do with AQ, why not?

[booley]

28. The father had no standing

so the court ruled.

Awlaki had to do the case himself. Which would have led to his death most likeley.

Great catch 22.

It's court review in the semantic sense.

[treestar]

37. If we need all of that, we could not get any terrorist

Not before the attacks are carried out, at any rate.

Then you were OK with OBL's killing too, I would assume, since there was some sort of warrant for him on the embassy bombings (none for 911).

[JVS]

45. We'd need to modify our legal system to allow a trial in absentia more easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia

But what blows my mind is that after 10 years we haven't even made attempts to reconcile policy with the law.

[rucky]

3. Imminent threat is the measure, IMHO.

Being "determined" isn't strong enough, but if there is clear evidence of an imminent threat, then you do what you need to do. But you can't just say that we felt the threat was imminent. There has to be hearings & evidence presented afterward. Use the same burden of proof given to individuals who stand trial for murder, then plead self defense or duress.

[ellisonz]

39. Except the nature of terrorism is generally that you can't see it coming.

Especially since 9/11 blew the lid off the traditional terrorist organization model of top-down command. Today's attackers are decentralized. Anwar al-Awlaki sent a suicide bomber to blow up a jetliner in Detroit last Christmas using a hidden bomb, did you see that coming? Could you have seen it coming?

[Recovered Repug]

4. If you only give me difficult choices,

how will I ever remain pure?

[Modern_Matthew]

6. "Nice piece of fiction based on a true story you have there."

Would be my response.

[Modern_Matthew]

7. EDIT: Accidental double post. Delete, please. nt

[rustydog]

8. didn't happen. Our best response; rush in, capture him,

put him on trial and PROVE the allegations. then sentence him.
Timothy McVeigh who actually murdered Americans was put on trial, but a guy who changed his name to a "terrorist-sounding name" gets murdered for talking shit about America and calling for them to be killed.

God bless America,
Land that I love
Stand beside her and
guide her
Through the night with the light
from above...

We don't murder our alleged enemies. We are better than this.

[Robb]

17. "A key part of the prosecution case was a series of heavily encrypted messages between al-Awlaki..."

...A key part of the prosecution case was a series of heavily encrypted messages between al-Awlaki and Karim, in which al-Awlaki pressed for information about Karim's job and his knowledge of airport security.

"I pray that Allah may grant us a breakthrough through you ... can you please specify your role in the airline industry, how much access do you have to airports, what information do you have on the limitations and cracks in present airport security systems?"

(snip)

Replying, al-Awlaki got straight to the point:

"Our highest priority is the U.S. Anything there, even on a smaller scale compared to what we may do in the UK, would be our choice. So the question is: with the people you have is it possible to get a package or person with a package on board a flight heading to the U.S.?"

Read more: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-28/world/uk.terror.verdict_1_al-awlaki-qaeda-airport-security?_s=PM:WORLD

That's some serious trash-talking. :shrug:

[rustydog]

24. Forgive me, HE IS GUILTY by allegation, kill him.

All the proof you need. Kill him, guilty. Next!

[treestar]

40. I wonder would that be enough evidence

of planning a thing - like if you had such communications about a robbery, could the people be arrested for conspiracy to commit a robbery?

Same thing here - they are in a planning stage, not just chanting "death to the US!"

[ellisonz]

43. What happens when the commando raid fails?

And our soldiers are tortured and executed on camera...who tells their families that it was necessary to try to arrest a dangerous man in a foreign land because "we are better than this." Tell that to the people on that plane in Detroit last Christmas.

[mainer]

47. If he were on US soil, obviously that would be the action

In Yemen, he was untouchable.

[Safetykitten]

9. Oh, I would call in my hippy-punching staff and they have lawyer friends.

We would have some lunches and the lawyers could outline some ideas, and will get back to me.

Amazing of all things, the President gets shit over this. And I am not one of his fans.

[Enrique]

11. when Bush got that memo, it was already our policy to kill bin laden

so his failure wasn't that he was not willing to kill that one man. He was willing to do that already. His failure was to take action regarding the specific threat.

So to answer your question, if I'm the president and I get that memo I figure out what's needed to prevent the attack.

[YellowCosmicSun]

12. Of course you let him slaughter people until you can detain him for a trial, right?

right?????

His due process is ever so much more important than the lives he threatens.


:sarcasm:

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. Do you have even a scintilla of evidence that al-Alawki EVER raised his hand against America

or Americans? Any proof whatsoever that he engaged in combat of any kind against America or Americans?

Is it al-Alawki's speech that you feel justified his killing?

[Sheepshank]

18. You are assuming there is NO evidence?

Do you have access to all those empty files, with no evidence in them?

Did you have access to all the files re: Bin Laden too?

Gawd...what makes your assumption and premis surrounding this situation factual in any sense of the matter?

You make shit up, and they get all pissed off that people thinking like you on this matter?

[Paladin]

23. Prove It. (n/t)

[YellowCosmicSun]

21. Why are you on his side, Vinnie? He wasn't on yours.

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. I am not on his side at all, I am on the side of the rule of law

and against an imperial President with the power of life and death over any American solely based on his word.

[treestar]

42. If you feel the POTUS has to prove it to YOU first

Then you should be on top of that subject at all times! Not waiting until after the fact to judge.

You don't even know what evidence there was!

[polly7]

14. So killing the top operative in this plot is the best scenario? Really?

Was he going to accomplish this strike alone? Personally, I think capturing him would be the best tool 'against' this possible future attack and it would be beneficial to at least attempt to learn all possible threats, locations, details associated with it. That's hard to do when your best source of information and bargaining tool is dead.

[JackRiddler]

16. You left out the only option that would matter to the targets of this supposed attack.

What would disrupt the actual plan to attack? Killing him obviously would make no difference to the plan (given your example based on the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB).

Going strictly by the official 9/11 story, if the response to the Aug. 6th PDB to Bush titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US" were to assassinate OBL, that alone would have made no difference at all to the plot. It would more likely have been an inspiration than any kind of operational disruption or deterrent to the alleged hijackers.

Your example is an extremely narrow false dilemma. Long as you're doing hypotheticals, why don't you set one up wherein I choose not to covertly intervene in Afghanistan in the first place (back in 1979)? Wherein I choose not to finance and arm the Arab mujahedeen, not to collaborate with the most extreme and backward elements in the Middle East including the later "Qaeda" militants and the oil monarchies, not to bomb most of the countries there for decades, not to starve and then invade Iraq, not to react to terrorist attacks by launching an endless global war and turning my country into a police state? Wherein - hey, I'm the president! - I dedicate myself to ending the endless wars and the policies of empire that are predictably driving hatred and bankrupting my country, and devote the money to meeting my people's needs instead of expanding the security state?

Because by omitting all that, your example is a mindless predetermination of the desired answer. Propaganda.

It reminds me of this:

Your pro-CIA ethics professor presents you with a list of decontextualized scenarios designed to coerce you into accepting a worldview wherein the interests of "The United States of America" (whatever that may be), a priori trump any or all ethical considerations. Is it morally acceptable to play along with his mind-game, and complete the assignment within the false parameters dictated, or do you call him out on his bullshit in front of the class and refuse to participate?

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?t=20974

[5X]

25. +1000 n/t

[booley]

27. You are President and handed a memo: Gay Martians to attack

Gawds I love hypotheticals. You can make anything mean anything else.

And lets not forget defining the answers so ONLY the option you advocate will seem like the best one.

Too bad that even if we take at face value what the gov said about Awlaki, your argument makes no sense. He was a propaganda guy. Not the one planning actual attacks.

Not to mention that if I , as President was handed such a document, then I could use THAT and the evidence presented within to make a legal case that Awlaki was dangerous and a criminal rather then just saying he was. That way if he could be captured alive, he could go to trial. And if we couldn't then at least we would have already made the case about how dangerous this guy was.

Maybe I can understand assassination as a last resort. But the thing about last resorts is they are supposed to be the LAST of the resorts.

Our government can now kidnap, lock up, torture and/or kill you because it thinks you might be dangerous. That should at the least give us some pause whether there's a D or an R beside the President's name. Because this has consequences that go way beyond this one guy no matter how evil he was.

[bvar22]

29. This is a wonderful example of the "Limited Options Logical Fallacy".

There are MANY other reasonable options you failed to list.

*Order the Security Services to determine if this guy had the resources and support necessary to be a viable threat to the USA.

*Put him under 24/7 surveillance.

*Track his contacts

*Determine his funding sources

*Notify International Law Enforcement

*Petition the Judicial Branch for an Indictment & Arrest Warrant




Were you as supportive of Bush-the-Lesser when he assumed the powers of the Unitary Executive?
It was WRONG then.
It is WRONG now.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[mainer]

30. We condemned Bush for not following up on his PDB

Remember "Al Qaeda determined to strike"? And how Bush went on vacation and seemingly forgot about it until 9/11?

[tkmorris]

31. That's not good enough

When failing to act is a failure in leadership it does not logically follow that any action is therefore justified.

[mainer]

48. So by your logic a leader should not act on anything

until we all get to vote and debate about it for the next ten years, and maybe if we're lucky the bin Ladens will just keel over of old age.

[tkmorris]

50. You know very well that isn't my logic

This style of "discussion" is just ridiculous. If you disagree with my point of view, fine, make your case that I'm wrong. Trying to put words into my mouth that aren't (obviously) even remotely what I was trying to say and then mocking those nonexistent words isn't even debating the topic. It's a tactic that seemed tired in Middle School and definitely has no place here.

My point is simply this. Inaction (as the OP so eloquently pointed out) was not the proper course of action. However that does not make any action taken automatically the proper one. In this case preemptive assassination was the action taken and I am convinced that this is a very dangerous precedent to set. The argument has been made that it is not precedent setting since extra-judicial killing has been done many times before but for me this the first time I can recall where it has been both premeditated and an attempt has been made to declare such a legal act.

I think the point of view I have laid out is perfectly simple to understand. If you wish to disagree feel free, but if you wish to propose a counter-argument it needs to be better than jumping up and down and sticking out your tongue. This board has too much of that crap already and I won't bother responding to it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. I'd certainly question the accuracy of anything the CIA handed me.

They have a rather checkered history of accuracy not to mention their own history of assassinations.

[EFerrari]

33. Lol. You win the DU. n/t

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, we will see that PDB if your supposition is correct.

If not, then we are back to where we were. It is against International law and the Constitution and no President of the US should have the powers of a King, which the Left used to agree on. But that was when the President was a Republican.

[JVS]

41. I send a letter to congress and the supreme court that opens discussion of how we can reconcile...

the need to take action within the provisions of the constitution. I ask them what kind of legislation would be necessary to deal with this kind of issue now and in the future. I CC this letter to the UN (the security council at least, the general assembly if my advisers consider that prudent) and the ICC in the Hague and ask them for their views on the international law implications of this situation. I also invite the ambassador of Yemen over to the White House to discuss how we can cooperate in taking action.

[watercolors]

44. Go get the Bastard, nuff said!!

[Festivito]

46. Looks like you might have lost this one.

I still love mostly all the stuff you've posted.

This one is not cutting it.

[JackRiddler]

49. Oh, and if this was a sound decision for keeping the people secure, what does THIS mean?

Google News = Headlines, 4:30 pm


U.S. issues travel alert after Awlaki death
Reuters - ‎35 minutes ago‎

Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born cleric linked to al Qaeda's Yemen-based wing, gives a religious lecture in an unknown location in this still image taken from video released by Intelwire.
Related
Anwar al-Awlaki »
Yemen »
Awlaki »
US warns of revenge attacks after hits on Al-QaedaAFP
US warns of retaliation following cleric's killingBoston Globe
From Yemen:Death of Anwar al-Awlaki in YemenYemen Post
Opinion:Good riddance to al-AwlakiNational Post
In Depth:FBI, security officials warn of possible retaliation over al-Awlaki killingCNN
Wikipedia:Anwar al-Awlaki